Realistic Player Progression Model

[foxdawg2000]

1) In Season progression should always be there...
Possibly rewarding players for certain achievements throughout a season.. but limiting the bonus you get based on the players current rating.. for example.. a FR WR rated 65 may get a +5 for 500 yds receiving in a season... 75 rated SO WR gets +4 for 1000 yds .. 85 rated JR WR +3 for 1500 yds.. You could always adjust the milestones and bonuses.. this would make it more difficult for the older players to progress when many times they've reached they're potential threshold as they mature....

I liked the spring game feature in prev GEN because not only did it let you see what you had to work with it also gave you a chance to possibly perform well to affect offseason progression..

2) Offseason Progression should also be there and that is the one that should be partially random ... for example in real life some guys bs one offseason and dont improve at all .. then the next offseason see someone possibly taking their job and bust their butt to get better and keep their position ... At the same time.. if a WR from Alabama or Florida is working against DBs from their schools who are 1st round NFL material they have a tendency to get better in an offseason more than a WR from a lesser prestige school.. So possibly add team prestige as a portion of the bonus of offseason training.. at the same time the JERRY RICE/DEMARCUS WARE factor comes in where some guys just come from small schools out of nowhere to be studs later down the road..

My conclusion is at some point performance needs to be a part of progression...to couple this i feel that there can be a random assignment value given due to the fact that there are countless offseason variables that attribute to a player's improvement.. Based on the couple seasons I've played I give EA a C+ in the progression area of NCAA where theres much room for improvement..

[DK10]

There are so many people just blindly pushing their uninformed pov in this threat. It makes me sad because it seems most of the readers in the thread either lack reading, comprehension or logic skills to understand what the TS is saying when he makes a pretty simple a good argument.


There a few things you should realize with the system he is proposing.

1. You will not know how much your players will progress. Same as now which is good.

2. The game will base progression on known averages to keep the balance of the player world. This would keep things like 90% of teams being rated at D or worse out of the game like it shipped earlier this year.

3. Statistical performance says nothing about potential or progression. You can certainly make an argument for game playing time being a factor but not performance.

4. Players are in that actual game on the field for about 1.5 hours a week for 13ish weeks a year. Yet they practice 6-7 days a week for anywhere 2-8 hours a day for many months. Practice time outweighs play time probably 9-1 at least and that is where a lot of the reps and progress is made in real life. Either the game lets you deal with this realistically (ie several scrimmages each week between games + other things) or it sims it and you accept what it gives you. Weather its random or pseudo random adjusted for realistic distribution does not matter one bit.


Say you run for 2000 yards with a 66ovrall freshman RB. He goes up by 2 in the off-season when you expected at least a +6 for his amazing year.

This says a few things to me:

1. You need to adjust your sliders because a 66 should not have the numbers a 99 would have even if you force fed the 99 stats/carries.

2. I bet your team went at least 10-x this season when in reality if you had simmed the games you would have won maybe 6.

3. If you could run for 2000 at 66 do you expect to go for 2500 at 72?

4. Do you really even need to get better players as you are already playing well above their ratings and thus winning more games?

5. Do you see other 65-70 players breaking season records? (In game or real life?) The answer is no. Since that is the case perhaps you shouldn't base all your expectations off of something that never happens in real life or the virtual recreation of it by EA unless the user interferes.

6. In real life 2* players are numerous but some make it to the mid 80s at least according to this game. With recruiting and the way players are now you will NEVER have have a 2* (perhaps a 56 ovr freshman year) make it to 85 by the time he is a RS Sr. With a more random yet logically designed system that would be possible.


Players stats from non simmed games should have no impact on performance.


I say bring on the revamped model the TS is proposing.

[VanillaGorilla]

EA could remedy this next year by including 3-5 weeks of offseason training. It would work just like recruiting: you get 10 hours a week to train players. Depending on your coach rating, the hidden potential rating of each player, and how much time you pump into training those players, you could improve things like awareness, speed, strength, etc. Either do it that way, or bring back those minigames that Madden used to have, where you could add points to a guys ratings by doing drills and such.

[The GIGGAS]

Quote: Originally Posted by DK10

There are so many people just blindly pushing their uninformed pov in this threat. It makes me sad because it seems most of the readers in the thread either lack reading, comprehension or logic skills to understand what the TS is saying when he makes a pretty simple a good argument. There a few things you should realize with the system he is proposing. 1. You will not know how much your players will progress. Same as now which is good. 2. The game will base progression on known averages to keep the balance of the player world. This would keep things like 90% of teams being rated at D or worse out of the game like it shipped earlier this year. 3. Statistical performance says nothing about potential or progression. You can certainly make an argument for game playing time being a factor but not performance. 4. Players are in that actual game on the field for about 1.5 hours a week for 13ish weeks a year. Yet they practice 6-7 days a week for anywhere 2-8 hours a day for many months. Practice time outweighs play time probably 9-1 at least and that is where a lot of the reps and progress is made in real life. Either the game lets you deal with this realistically (ie several scrimmages each week between games + other things) or it sims it and you accept what it gives you. Weather its random or pseudo random adjusted for realistic distribution does not matter one bit. Say you run for 2000 yards with a 66ovrall freshman RB. He goes up by 2 in the off-season when you expected at least a +6 for his amazing year. This says a few things to me: 1. You need to adjust your sliders because a 66 should not have the numbers a 99 would have even if you force fed the 99 stats/carries. 2. I bet your team went at least 10-x this season when in reality if you had simmed the games you would have won maybe 6. 3. If you could run for 2000 at 66 do you expect to go for 2500 at 72? 4. Do you really even need to get better players as you are already playing well above their ratings and thus winning more games? 5. Do you see other 65-70 players breaking season records? (In game or real life?) The answer is no. Since that is the case perhaps you shouldn't base all your expectations off of something that never happens in real life or the virtual recreation of it by EA unless the user interferes. 6. In real life 2* players are numerous but some make it to the mid 80s at least according to this game. With recruiting and the way players are now you will NEVER have have a 2* (perhaps a 56 ovr freshman year) make it to 85 by the time he is a RS Sr. With a more random yet logically designed system that would be possible. Players stats from non simmed games should have no impact on performance. I say bring on the revamped model the TS is proposing.

That was a great summary of what the OP is saying... I agree with you, bring it ON.

[Catamount53]

Quote: Originally Posted by DK10

There are so many people just blindly pushing their uninformed pov in this threat. It makes me sad because it seems most of the readers in the thread either lack reading, comprehension or logic skills to understand what the TS is saying when he makes a pretty simple a good argument. There a few things you should realize with the system he is proposing. 1. You will not know how much your players will progress. Same as now which is good. 2. The game will base progression on known averages to keep the balance of the player world. This would keep things like 90% of teams being rated at D or worse out of the game like it shipped earlier this year. 3. Statistical performance says nothing about potential or progression. You can certainly make an argument for game playing time being a factor but not performance. 4. Players are in that actual game on the field for about 1.5 hours a week for 13ish weeks a year. Yet they practice 6-7 days a week for anywhere 2-8 hours a day for many months. Practice time outweighs play time probably 9-1 at least and that is where a lot of the reps and progress is made in real life. Either the game lets you deal with this realistically (ie several scrimmages each week between games + other things) or it sims it and you accept what it gives you. Weather its random or pseudo random adjusted for realistic distribution does not matter one bit. Say you run for 2000 yards with a 66ovrall freshman RB. He goes up by 2 in the off-season when you expected at least a +6 for his amazing year. This says a few things to me: 1. You need to adjust your sliders because a 66 should not have the numbers a 99 would have even if you force fed the 99 stats/carries. 2. I bet your team went at least 10-x this season when in reality if you had simmed the games you would have won maybe 6. 3. If you could run for 2000 at 66 do you expect to go for 2500 at 72? 4. Do you really even need to get better players as you are already playing well above their ratings and thus winning more games? 5. Do you see other 65-70 players breaking season records? (In game or real life?) The answer is no. Since that is the case perhaps you shouldn't base all your expectations off of something that never happens in real life or the virtual recreation of it by EA unless the user interferes. 6. In real life 2* players are numerous but some make it to the mid 80s at least according to this game. With recruiting and the way players are now you will NEVER have have a 2* (perhaps a 56 ovr freshman year) make it to 85 by the time he is a RS Sr. With a more random yet logically designed system that would be possible. Players stats from non simmed games should have no impact on performance. I say bring on the revamped model the TS is proposing.

Ok obviously in real life player get better during practice, but in this game there is no practice, no work ethic, no discipline, no partying on the weekends, no getting arrested, or anything else that affects how players progress throughout their college career. The only thing in this game is stats and playing time.

If you were coaching a real team you could decide where to spend your time on in practice or who to spend more time with to maximize their potential. In this game the only thing you can do is give them the ball or have them make plays.

I do not believe that it is a good idea to take that control out of the user's hands without giving more of the variables that are present in real life. Seeing as this is a video game and I am not a real head coach and these are not real players , I would like the opportunity to affect how the players progress and right now the only way to do that is in games.

[doom41]

Quote: Originally Posted by brettford

The progression engine is basically putting a check on itself and saying "when I assign progression points this year, I need to make sure that the output maintains the similar bell curve shape observed in real life." On an individual player level, your recruits would still be randomly generated and unique to your dynasty (they need waaay more names/faces btw but thats another topic...). Once you landed a recruit, you would have no idea how much he would improve. There is nothing "fixed" about this...I was using that term before to describe in more detail how the simulator might go about doing it.

In your original post you talked about "fixed" progression paths (ei... +8 after fr. yr, +5 after so. yr, +3 after jr. yr) that would be set when the recruit was generated. At least that is how I understood it. I could not see that working.
Now, what you say above, backing the amount of progression each year into set bell curve. I can see that working. I still think there is room for other factors: coaching, facilities, playing time, etc... to play a part in how much players progress, but I will agree that backing progression into an OVR bell-curve each year is a good idea.

[dreezymac]

This is a thread to incite discussion and to that end it has worked well. A lot of people have contributed solid ideas but in the end we're basically beating a dead horse.

"Fixed" progression is indeed a good idea in theory but the fact that progression is impossible to predict in real life makes it a pass/fail endeavor. I personally dont like having high 90 rated players on top of high 90 rated players or players not reaching a fair potential but at the same time the CPU shouldnt be able to look back at the players that have left and adjust progression accordingly. Real football players are not a test to be taken meaning the bell curve cannot be applied and therefore there is no realistic equilibrium. However, no matter how much we want the game to be real to life its just that...a game and anything can be incorporated. In this case, we need only establish and accept a starting point. Like most starting theories, we wouldnt know whether this one breaks down or blows up until its applied.

Regarding multiple factor based progression, like the OP has mentioned, there are way too many minor things that can affect progression for it to be efficent and still maintain game integrity. I dont know...some people like being able to do all the small things but I personally can do without. Besides EA only has a year (likely less) to get us a game we like and they still dont manage to hit everything. Can you imagine how much will be missed if they put so much focus on this?

Only thing I cant get down with is performance based progression. There are several reasons why but for people who play in dynasties with other users just consider this one thing: do you really want to leave progression in the hands of the user when its so easy to cheese plays?? Give me performance based progression and Im just going to put my recruits at the top of the depth chart.

[doom41]

Quote: Originally Posted by dreezymac

"Fixed" progression is indeed a good idea in theory but the fact that progression is impossible to predict in real life makes it a pass/fail endeavor. I personally dont like having high 90 rated players on top of high 90 rated players or players not reaching a fair potential but at the same time the CPU shouldnt be able to look back at the players that have left and adjust progression accordingly. Real football players are not a test to be taken meaning the bell curve cannot be applied and therefore there is no realistic equilibrium. However, no matter how much we want the game to be real to life its just that...a game and anything can be incorporated. In this case, we need only establish and accept a starting point. Like most starting theories, we wouldnt know whether this one breaks down or blows up until its applied.

Agreed, however we're not talking about "real" football players. We're talking about "computer generated" football players, who's abilities are determined by a numerical rating system.
In this case I believe a bell-curve applies very well. Especially in the context of trying to keep future rosters in line with the default roster, and not having them get too skewed one way or the other.